In his last post, Saul asks "Isn't there a case to be made for allowing virtual worlds to house such law-free transactions for willing players? Legal Entrepreneurs, or 'game administrators,' can offer alternative rules and even require that real bonds be posted and forefeited for violations." Ifear I may disappoint him again by agreeing: Yes, people should be free to do this, and the law shouldn't get in the way. But isn't this just a traditional question of contract law? In a sense, a contract is a virtual world; two people get together and agree on a set of relationships. They each agree to play particular roles, particular characters (seller, buyer, etc.), subject to a set of penalties, or if they prefer, no set of penalties at all. You can think of virtual worlds as form contracts, in which participants pick the contract by picking the virtual world.